login
Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 24)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-03-03 11:12 AM in reply to: #3379871 |
Iron Donkey 38643       , Wisconsin |  Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 4:22 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-02 4:12 PM Phil, I love you, man, but you're linking to a "Progressive Blog" as support? Really? And because Democrats feel that 61 hours of continuous debate, more than for any previous bill in State history, and at a point no new arguments were being advanced, wasn't somehow enough? Would there have EVER been enough? Face it, no one was going to change their vote then, no one will change it now. All the democrats are doing at this point is making a spectacle and making the divide worse. It's time to move on. If you don't like it, win the next election. Address your grievances within the system. Don't make a mockery of it. And don't try to bully the will of the voters. scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 3:00 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-02 2:39 PM Yes, Phil. The Budget Repair Bill was debated and passed by the Assembly and advanced to the State Senate for a vote, according to the rules. The only thing preventing a vote is the absence of the Democratic State senators in an unprecedented abdication of their duties as elected representatives. scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 2:34 PM WaitingGuilty - 2011-03-02 1:01 PM One sentiment I keep hearing from conservatives regarding the 2010 election is that Walker "Overwhelmingly" won. Polls are funny things, aren't they? Especially depending on WHO is being polled and how the question is worded. I saw a polling expert on "Today" (that bastion of conservatism) say that when respondents were asked "Do you believe public workers should be allowed to collectively bargain?" the results were 60-40% in favor. When the word "public" was changed to "government" the results were almost exactly opposite. The fact is Gov. Walker DID win and 5% of the popular vote is hardly insignificant. Republicans also won the State Legislature and the Senate seat. By any measure, it was a sweeping Republican victory in a traditionally blue state. As Republican were told repeatedly during the Health Care Bill debate, elections have consequences. What's more, it's hardly like Gov. Walker is going alone on this. The Budget Repair Bill has already been approved in the State Assembly and has majority support in the State Senate. It's not like he's going rogue and issuing monarchical decrees from on high. More debate about the Budget Repair Bill has now been permitted to take place on the Assembly Floor than ANY PREVIOUS BILL in Wisconsin history. (BTW, you know how long debate was allowed on the previous Democratic Governor's Budget Repair Bill, which was unanimously opposed by the then-minority Republican legislature? One hour!) It's time due democratic process was allowed to take place. I'm not an expert, but I do have a B.A in Political Science, and never once in my life have I ever heard anyone say that a major election candidate who won on a 52% majority called overwhelming until this WI debate. Further, I've seen polls this week saying that Barrett would win if the election were held today...by almost the exact margin which Walker won last Nov...52%-47% or somewhere close to that. "due democratic process"? Yep - "due democratic process" (a reminder that I'm not affiliated with either party): http://bluecheddar.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/at-1am-friday-february-25-assembly-republicans-pass-budget-bill-with-seconds-long-roll-call-vote/ I LOF you, too, Rich. *manhug* I was pointing out that: 1). The opening and closing of the poll was done very quickly - much more quickly than any other time, as if just in spite of the opposition, and then all walking out in a choreagraphed manner, like a kid taking his ball. 2). The Democrats all standing up and shouting, acting like kids, too. This whole thing makes me despise our legislature all the more. |
| 2011-03-03 11:13 AM in reply to: #3381044 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 9:58 AM drewb8 - 2011-03-03 9:50 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 6:32 AM Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector? Let's look at attorneys. Specifically, prosecutors. Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys? Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime? Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes? To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency. With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go? They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction. Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more? I think you're kind of right. Yes, there are some jobs that I would be ok with the public workers making more. One example would be the financial regulators. There's a situation now where you have all of these brilliant kids who graduate from MIT or CalTech, who in the past would've gone on to become engineers or physicists or whatnot, now going to Wall Street and writing these extremely complex algorithms to deal with stock trading or derivitaves because they are offered obscene amounts of money. The problem is, only a handful of people in the country actually understand what they do, and very few if any of those people are regulators. So you end up with these complex finiancial instruments that hardly anyone can understand or value which was one contributing cause to the recent financial meltdown. And without paying the regulators wages that are competative with the private sector we will never have people on the public's side to properly understand what's going on. I agree that gov't wages have to be competative in order to attract high quality workers, but for the avg public sector job - a surveyor, nurse, paper pusher, etc - I don't see why it should have to be more (or less), as long as education and experience are taken into account. Just out of curiosity - even for a prosecutor, if public sector and private practice paid the exact same amounts, do you think the prosecutor's office would have trouble attracting quality attornies or is there something about private practice that is so enticing that it would be hard even in that situation? I can tell you when I worked for the gov't I could've made more by moving to private industry and becoming a consultant, but part of my 'pay' was the satisfaction of knowing that I was serving our country and contributing to its betterment and that was important to me, however, I recognize that for most people the bottom line is simply the salary. As far as prosecutors, if the pay was equal there probably would be no problem attracting and keeping talented lawyers. For me, I stayed, in large part, because of the job satisfaction that you also experienced. There is something rewarding in-and-of-itself about public service. However, at least in the area where I live, the disparity is so great, that it is actually surprising and rare to find career prosecutors. Even the less talented prosecutors can leave for private practice and make magnitudes more money then they were with the government. I obviously can't speak for where you live but I can say that in Idaho it is a bit different. Prosecutors in Idaho are never lacking for work and they are gauranteed a paycheck every two weeks along with their cushy benefits. My wife works for three private criminal defense attorneys, they split her services as a legal assistant. They cry and moan every month about how they are not sure if they will be able to pay her or not. One of them hasn't had a new client since December. Another has $30k in money owed to him by clients that simply can't or won't pay. One of them even tried to sign on with the Public Defenders office just to have something to do. Criminal defense attorneys in Idaho are definitely not rolling in the dough. I would go so far as to say that the prosecutors are probably making more money and don't have near the headaches to deal with. Idaho has a website where one can look up exactly how much everyone is paid. I just looked up a prosecutor. He is pulling down $76,000 a year. I used to work for the county so I know what the spend on benefits as they told us every paycheck, the claimed to spend around $14k a year on my benefits. So $14k plus the $76k he takes home is $90k a year and he doesn't have to track down new clients, bill collect, pay rent for an office, pay for a staff, worry about finding work, etc. And yes $90k is a great salary for Idaho, might not be a lot in California, but around here it is really good money. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. |
| 2011-03-03 1:28 PM in reply to: #3380650 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-03 8:56 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 5:32 AM drewb8 - 2011-03-01 4:20 PM TriRSquared - 2011-03-01 1:04 PM I'm not saying this chart seals the argument. However it is interesting that so many federal jobs were quite a bit higher than private sector jobs. After all, a business has to make money. The government has no bottom line to keep. So why not give out higher wages? When you look at things like engineers, airline pilots, paralegals, surveyors, nurses etc.. the education level requirements are pretty much the same so that really nullifies that argument But again, it's not an apples to apples comparison. For example, nurses in the federal government are more than twice as likely to have a college degree as those in the private sector (24% vs 11%). Overall about 1/2 the federal workforce has a college degree vs about 1/3 of the private workforce. More than 1/2 the federal workforce is over 45 while in the private sector it's 38, so you would expect a more experienced engineer, paralegal or surveyor to be paid more. According to the OMB director, when age and education are held constant there is no statistically significant difference between feds and the private sector. And I know that when setting wages OPM basically tries to match it to the similar private sector job (though I'm sure you could argue about how well they do that). There's also no way of knowing whether that chart is reprenstative or if certain occupations were cherry picked to make the article more shocking to the reader. For example, using the same BLS stats a petroleum engineer would make $93,140 with the gov't but $119,140 in the private sector yet that's not on the chart. I can agree with you that there is no reason public sector workers should be paid more than private sector ones, but they shouldn't be paid less either. I saw no one saying 'we need to give all those public employees a bonus!' when times were good and private industry was raking it in. They didn't share in that prosperity but now are being asked (and are) to make sacrifices when times are bad. Which is fine, a 3% pay cut like the WI state workers took last year can be the price for increased job security, but I guess main problem is with this idea that seems to have taken hold that public workers are a bunch of greedy, spoiled sloths who are only out to cheat the oublic, and that you can somehow balance the budget on their backs without asking anyone else for any kind of sacrifice. To me it seems as wrong as the idea that you can solve the problem by just taxing the ^&*^ out of the rich. Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector? Let's look at attorneys. Specifically, prosecutors. Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys? Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime? Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes? To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency. With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go? They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction. Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more? What kind of money do the top Criminal Defense Lawyers make? 100,000's more than the top prosecutors. I acknowledge that paying a top line prosecutor equal to what the most prominant private criminal attorneys is total folly. (and foolishness). However, being paid in the ball park of even less experienced and less talented attorneys in the private sector would go a long way in helping to keep talented prosecutors from fleeing into the private sector...or you could pay them less and give them benefits....oh wait...apparently people don't want to do either. |
| 2011-03-03 1:46 PM in reply to: #3381071 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Aarondb4 - 2011-03-03 12:13 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 9:58 AM drewb8 - 2011-03-03 9:50 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 6:32 AM Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector? Let's look at attorneys. Specifically, prosecutors. Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys? Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime? Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes? To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency. With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go? They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction. Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more? I think you're kind of right. Yes, there are some jobs that I would be ok with the public workers making more. One example would be the financial regulators. There's a situation now where you have all of these brilliant kids who graduate from MIT or CalTech, who in the past would've gone on to become engineers or physicists or whatnot, now going to Wall Street and writing these extremely complex algorithms to deal with stock trading or derivitaves because they are offered obscene amounts of money. The problem is, only a handful of people in the country actually understand what they do, and very few if any of those people are regulators. So you end up with these complex finiancial instruments that hardly anyone can understand or value which was one contributing cause to the recent financial meltdown. And without paying the regulators wages that are competative with the private sector we will never have people on the public's side to properly understand what's going on. I agree that gov't wages have to be competative in order to attract high quality workers, but for the avg public sector job - a surveyor, nurse, paper pusher, etc - I don't see why it should have to be more (or less), as long as education and experience are taken into account. Just out of curiosity - even for a prosecutor, if public sector and private practice paid the exact same amounts, do you think the prosecutor's office would have trouble attracting quality attornies or is there something about private practice that is so enticing that it would be hard even in that situation? I can tell you when I worked for the gov't I could've made more by moving to private industry and becoming a consultant, but part of my 'pay' was the satisfaction of knowing that I was serving our country and contributing to its betterment and that was important to me, however, I recognize that for most people the bottom line is simply the salary. As far as prosecutors, if the pay was equal there probably would be no problem attracting and keeping talented lawyers. For me, I stayed, in large part, because of the job satisfaction that you also experienced. There is something rewarding in-and-of-itself about public service. However, at least in the area where I live, the disparity is so great, that it is actually surprising and rare to find career prosecutors. Even the less talented prosecutors can leave for private practice and make magnitudes more money then they were with the government. I obviously can't speak for where you live but I can say that in Idaho it is a bit different. Prosecutors in Idaho are never lacking for work and they are gauranteed a paycheck every two weeks along with their cushy benefits. My wife works for three private criminal defense attorneys, they split her services as a legal assistant. They cry and moan every month about how they are not sure if they will be able to pay her or not. One of them hasn't had a new client since December. Another has $30k in money owed to him by clients that simply can't or won't pay. One of them even tried to sign on with the Public Defenders office just to have something to do. Criminal defense attorneys in Idaho are definitely not rolling in the dough. I would go so far as to say that the prosecutors are probably making more money and don't have near the headaches to deal with. Idaho has a website where one can look up exactly how much everyone is paid. I just looked up a prosecutor. He is pulling down $76,000 a year. I used to work for the county so I know what the spend on benefits as they told us every paycheck, the claimed to spend around $14k a year on my benefits. So $14k plus the $76k he takes home is $90k a year and he doesn't have to track down new clients, bill collect, pay rent for an office, pay for a staff, worry about finding work, etc. And yes $90k is a great salary for Idaho, might not be a lot in California, but around here it is really good money. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Not sure what you mean by "never lacking for work?" Not really germain to the discussion since prosecutors don't get paid per case they are paid a salary. And the fact they don't lack for work is based upon crime rates. Yes, you are probably correct that some of the criminal defense attorneys are struggling now because of the economy. The individuals that would normally have hired them have also been hit by the economic times and those people that once would have hired private attorneys to represent them are now seeking public defenders because of their indigent status. However, when the economy was in full swing, say even three years ago, these same attorneys that are now crying poverty were reaping salaries at times two and three times what the prosecutors were making. And at that time no one was be moaning that the public defenders and prosecutors should be paid more. To address your point about the woes that the private bar has and the benefits that the prosecutors have. Typically, the prosecutor handles about three times as many cases as a similarly situated private defense attorney. When I was a prosecutor my case load, open and active at any one time was over 200 cases. This included prosecuting every single crime against a child that occurred in my county, as well as supervising a staff of 9 other attorneys. The cases I handled, homicides and sexual abuse against children, private attorneys would charge about 1/2 of my yearly salary to handle one of those cases. You claimed you looked up "a prosecutor" and he is making about $90K with benefits. That's neither here nor there, the number is meaningless unless that salary is compared with a private attorney of similar education, similar years of experience and similar success. When I left I was making about $82K a year in salary when you add benefits it bumped it up to about $94K. That's a great salary compared to the average salary in the U.S. However, when compared to attorneys similarly situated to me it was about -$40,000/yr. And I KNOW that I could have made double what I was making, because I had turned down such offers in the past. And again, yes since the economy has tanked many of the bottom feeder attorneys are now struggling to find work, but my issue is no one complained when the economy was fine and they were making $$ hand over fist and the public pay wasn't adjusted accordingly. Now people are screaming that the public secotr should share in the economic down turn, I find that funny, because no one was taking up the banner and when times were good saying that the public secotr should share in the fat times. We sure didn't, comparatively. The government and the citizens made a deal, the deal was less pay up front for more benefits on the back end. And now, they want to change that deal. It was fine for decades, and fine even 5 years ago, and no one thought anything of it, because times were good, and public employees were out of sight out of mind. Everyone is screaming that because the economy tanked the public employees should share in the down turn...Why? Why should I feel sorry for a private sector employee that didn't plan for the economic down turn? Established a life style comensorate with their current pay without any foresight into what might happen if and when the economy shifted? The public sector has been living like that for years. There have been hiring freezes in place for three years in some sectors. I didn't get a cost of living increase for the last 5 years. For over a decade we were paid far less than the public sector. Edited by Brock Samson 2011-03-03 1:53 PM |
| 2011-03-03 1:49 PM in reply to: #3381071 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Aarondb4 - 2011-03-03 12:13 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 9:58 AM drewb8 - 2011-03-03 9:50 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 6:32 AM Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector? Let's look at attorneys. Specifically, prosecutors. Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys? Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime? Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes? To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency. With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go? They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction. Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more? I think you're kind of right. Yes, there are some jobs that I would be ok with the public workers making more. One example would be the financial regulators. There's a situation now where you have all of these brilliant kids who graduate from MIT or CalTech, who in the past would've gone on to become engineers or physicists or whatnot, now going to Wall Street and writing these extremely complex algorithms to deal with stock trading or derivitaves because they are offered obscene amounts of money. The problem is, only a handful of people in the country actually understand what they do, and very few if any of those people are regulators. So you end up with these complex finiancial instruments that hardly anyone can understand or value which was one contributing cause to the recent financial meltdown. And without paying the regulators wages that are competative with the private sector we will never have people on the public's side to properly understand what's going on. I agree that gov't wages have to be competative in order to attract high quality workers, but for the avg public sector job - a surveyor, nurse, paper pusher, etc - I don't see why it should have to be more (or less), as long as education and experience are taken into account. Just out of curiosity - even for a prosecutor, if public sector and private practice paid the exact same amounts, do you think the prosecutor's office would have trouble attracting quality attornies or is there something about private practice that is so enticing that it would be hard even in that situation? I can tell you when I worked for the gov't I could've made more by moving to private industry and becoming a consultant, but part of my 'pay' was the satisfaction of knowing that I was serving our country and contributing to its betterment and that was important to me, however, I recognize that for most people the bottom line is simply the salary. As far as prosecutors, if the pay was equal there probably would be no problem attracting and keeping talented lawyers. For me, I stayed, in large part, because of the job satisfaction that you also experienced. There is something rewarding in-and-of-itself about public service. However, at least in the area where I live, the disparity is so great, that it is actually surprising and rare to find career prosecutors. Even the less talented prosecutors can leave for private practice and make magnitudes more money then they were with the government. I obviously can't speak for where you live but I can say that in Idaho it is a bit different. Prosecutors in Idaho are never lacking for work and they are gauranteed a paycheck every two weeks along with their cushy benefits. My wife works for three private criminal defense attorneys, they split her services as a legal assistant. They cry and moan every month about how they are not sure if they will be able to pay her or not. One of them hasn't had a new client since December. Another has $30k in money owed to him by clients that simply can't or won't pay. One of them even tried to sign on with the Public Defenders office just to have something to do. Criminal defense attorneys in Idaho are definitely not rolling in the dough. I would go so far as to say that the prosecutors are probably making more money and don't have near the headaches to deal with. Idaho has a website where one can look up exactly how much everyone is paid. I just looked up a prosecutor. He is pulling down $76,000 a year. I used to work for the county so I know what the spend on benefits as they told us every paycheck, the claimed to spend around $14k a year on my benefits. So $14k plus the $76k he takes home is $90k a year and he doesn't have to track down new clients, bill collect, pay rent for an office, pay for a staff, worry about finding work, etc. And yes $90k is a great salary for Idaho, might not be a lot in California, but around here it is really good money. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Oh, and you're just plain wrong about the head aches part. Each side has head aches and they are huge, but different. |
| 2011-03-03 2:27 PM in reply to: #3381301 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 11:28 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-03 8:56 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 5:32 AM drewb8 - 2011-03-01 4:20 PM TriRSquared - 2011-03-01 1:04 PM I'm not saying this chart seals the argument. However it is interesting that so many federal jobs were quite a bit higher than private sector jobs. After all, a business has to make money. The government has no bottom line to keep. So why not give out higher wages? When you look at things like engineers, airline pilots, paralegals, surveyors, nurses etc.. the education level requirements are pretty much the same so that really nullifies that argument But again, it's not an apples to apples comparison. For example, nurses in the federal government are more than twice as likely to have a college degree as those in the private sector (24% vs 11%). Overall about 1/2 the federal workforce has a college degree vs about 1/3 of the private workforce. More than 1/2 the federal workforce is over 45 while in the private sector it's 38, so you would expect a more experienced engineer, paralegal or surveyor to be paid more. According to the OMB director, when age and education are held constant there is no statistically significant difference between feds and the private sector. And I know that when setting wages OPM basically tries to match it to the similar private sector job (though I'm sure you could argue about how well they do that). There's also no way of knowing whether that chart is reprenstative or if certain occupations were cherry picked to make the article more shocking to the reader. For example, using the same BLS stats a petroleum engineer would make $93,140 with the gov't but $119,140 in the private sector yet that's not on the chart. I can agree with you that there is no reason public sector workers should be paid more than private sector ones, but they shouldn't be paid less either. I saw no one saying 'we need to give all those public employees a bonus!' when times were good and private industry was raking it in. They didn't share in that prosperity but now are being asked (and are) to make sacrifices when times are bad. Which is fine, a 3% pay cut like the WI state workers took last year can be the price for increased job security, but I guess main problem is with this idea that seems to have taken hold that public workers are a bunch of greedy, spoiled sloths who are only out to cheat the oublic, and that you can somehow balance the budget on their backs without asking anyone else for any kind of sacrifice. To me it seems as wrong as the idea that you can solve the problem by just taxing the ^&*^ out of the rich. Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector? Let's look at attorneys. Specifically, prosecutors. Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys? Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime? Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes? To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency. With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go? They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction. Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more? What kind of money do the top Criminal Defense Lawyers make? 100,000's more than the top prosecutors. I acknowledge that paying a top line prosecutor equal to what the most prominant private criminal attorneys is total folly. (and foolishness). However, being paid in the ball park of even less experienced and less talented attorneys in the private sector would go a long way in helping to keep talented prosecutors from fleeing into the private sector...or you could pay them less and give them benefits....oh wait...apparently people don't want to do either. Thanks & agreed. |
| 2011-03-03 3:00 PM in reply to: #3381328 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:
Not sure what you mean by "never lacking for work?" Not really germain to the discussion since prosecutors don't get paid per case they are paid a salary. And the fact they don't lack for work is based upon crime rates. That was the point, prosecutors get a salary and don't have to worry about finding work to pay the bills. That is an advantage to some. Yes, you are probably correct that some of the criminal defense attorneys are struggling now because of the economy. The individuals that would normally have hired them have also been hit by the economic times and those people that once would have hired private attorneys to represent them are now seeking public defenders because of their indigent status. Yup. However, when the economy was in full swing, say even three years ago, these same attorneys that are now crying poverty were reaping salaries at times two and three times what the prosecutors were making. And at that time no one was be moaning that the public defenders and prosecutors should be paid more. Whose job is it to ask for more money? I am not going to protest to pay someone else more. Also I am not trying to use a broad brush here but in my experience many of the attorneys working for the county couldn't defend, or prosecute their way out of a paper bag. I know that is not the case with all public attorneys and I'm sure not the case with you. But it is still a fact that many of the public attorneys are being paid more than they are worth, especially in the PD side of things. To address your point about the woes that the private bar has and the benefits that the prosecutors have. Typically, the prosecutor handles about three times as many cases as a similarly situated private defense attorney. When I was a prosecutor my case load, open and active at any one time was over 200 cases. This included prosecuting every single crime against a child that occurred in my county, as well as supervising a staff of 9 other attorneys. The cases I handled, homicides and sexual abuse against children, private attorneys would charge about 1/2 of my yearly salary to handle one of those cases. You claimed you looked up "a prosecutor" and he is making about $90K with benefits. That's neither here nor there, the number is meaningless unless that salary is compared with a private attorney of similar education, similar years of experience and similar success. Ok, my wife's boss is the same age, has been practicing the same amount of time, and is just as successful as the guy I looked up (I know them both personally). And I can tell you that the prosecutor is making more money than the private attorney. I also know a guy who was formerly a prosectuor and left the office when a new district attorney was elected. He had a difference of view so decided to leave, he is now doing criminal defense work and he can't even afford a high school kid to do the runs to the court house for him. When I left I was making about $82K a year in salary when you add benefits it bumped it up to about $94K. That's a great salary compared to the average salary in the U.S. However, when compared to attorneys similarly situated to me it was about -$40,000/yr. And I KNOW that I could have made double what I was making, because I had turned down such offers in the past. I'm not sure why you made the decision to be a prosecutor rather than a private attorney, I'm sure you had many reasons. I think for a lot of government employees the reason to work for the gov't is one, a paycheck that you know will always be there, and two, job security. I used to work for the court clerks office and I can tell you it was nearly impossible to get fired from that place. Pay was based on how long you had been there so all you had to do was sit in a seat and pick your nose for 30 years and you were all set for a comfy retirement. You can't get that in the private sector. And again, yes since the economy has tanked many of the bottom feeder attorneys are now struggling to find work, but my issue is no one complained when the economy was fine and they were making $$ hand over fist and the public pay wasn't adjusted accordingly. Now people are screaming that the public secotr should share in the economic down turn, I find that funny, because no one was taking up the banner and when times were good saying that the public secotr should share in the fat times. We sure didn't, comparatively. The government and the citizens made a deal, the deal was less pay up front for more benefits on the back end. And now, they want to change that deal. It was fine for decades, and fine even 5 years ago, and no one thought anything of it, because times were good, and public employees were out of sight out of mind. I really think that states have nowhere else to go. Idaho has cut education every year for the last three years and is working on cutting it again. We are cutting most of our services to mentally disabled adults. I think when the state is as broke as many are something has to be done and asking a public employee to contribute is not a ridiculous request. The main perk of job security is still there if everyone just chips in a bit. If I was still in gov't and had the choice I would prefer layoffs myself because I know that I would not be the one getting laid off because I didn't sit around and pick my nose. But almost everyone else in my office was there for the job security. So it amazes me that public employees are fighting so hard to layoff their co-workers. I guess my overall point is that aside from pay, the major benefit to working as a lawyer for the gov't is that you have job security and you know you are going to get paid. That is more important to some than it is to others. People who are more worried about the amount they are getting paid can work for the private sector. People who want to be comfortable and have security can work for the gov't. That is the reason I left the gov't. I decided to accept the risk that I might lose my job for the potential benefit of making more money in the long run. I am making less money now, have no benefits whatsoever, and I get to hear everyday from my boss how bad it is and how we aren't making any money. So for now the move has not paid off. But I am hopeful that someday it will.
And in response to the headaches comment. I didn't say public attorneys don't have headaches. Just not the same headaches, ie. payroll, rent, business taxes, advertising, etc. |
| 2011-03-03 6:37 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 9:25 AM Can we impeach you? Signed, All of the disgruntled Public Sector employees (teachers, firefighters, etc.) Isn't he doing exactly what he said he would do? People heard his plan and must have liked it because they voted him into office. If he doesn't follow through, the majority who voted for him will be ticked off and we will have protests from the other side. |
| 2011-03-03 6:39 PM in reply to: #3381794 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: wannabefaster - 2011-03-03 6:37 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 9:25 AM Can we impeach you? Isn't he doing exactly what he said he would do? People heard his plan and must have liked it because they voted him into office. If he doesn't follow through, the majority who voted for him will be ticked off and we will have protests from the other side.Signed, All of the disgruntled Public Sector employees (teachers, firefighters, etc.) |
| 2011-03-03 6:47 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: The majority that voted him in would probably go as opposing protestors to the Pro Union supportors but they have to work due to the budget crisis looming. Private sector jobs that have cut back cause concern for those that must meet actual performance goals and actually produce profitable bottom lines, thus they really can't just hang out at the Capitol Building in beautiful Wisconsin. Frankly, they should all be biking and running instead of all this yelling, jeez! |
| 2011-03-03 7:53 PM in reply to: #3381796 |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Thanks for the link. I learned something |
| 2011-03-03 8:05 PM in reply to: #3381872 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: wannabefaster - 2011-03-03 7:53 PM Thanks for the link. I learned something Politi"Fact" has proven to be a dubious resource at best. Walker campaigned that he would balance the state budget without raising taxes and while making Wisconsin a better climate for employers in order to help create 250K new jobs. By default, that meant deep cuts would be necessary. Eliminating the CBA's simply helps give local communities the flexibility and tools to deal with those deep cuts. |
| 2011-03-03 10:56 PM in reply to: #3381890 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-03 8:05 PM wannabefaster - 2011-03-03 7:53 PM Thanks for the link. I learned something Politi"Fact" has proven to be a dubious resource at best. Walker campaigned that he would balance the state budget without raising taxes and while making Wisconsin a better climate for employers in order to help create 250K new jobs. By default, that meant deep cuts would be necessary. Eliminating the CBA's simply helps give local communities the flexibility and tools to deal with those deep cuts. Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." The fact that your principles may not align with what it says does not make it untrue. Incidentally, that "flexibility" line I've been hearing Walker and Co. spouting makes almost no sense to me. What you're actually saying by "flexibility" is "the ability to hire the lowest bidder, which will prevent quality employees from getting jobs because they're worth more than what is being offered. Oh also, if you strike, you're fired." Yep. "Flexible." ETA: Abelson, whose union endorsed Barrett, said: "We heard rumors he would remove pension and health as mandatory subjects of bargaining." But at that time, nothing so direct was publicly stated. Jeff Stone, a Republican state representative from Greendale, was the source of the notion, Abelson said. The two had a meeting as Stone laid the groundwork for a run for Walker’s soon-to-be-vacant county job. Stone confirmed for us that he told Abelson before the election he thought Walker might propose the bolder course. He said Walker told him nothing; he guessed it from Walker’s emphasis on cost cutting and the deficits plaguing the state budget. "This was the only way I could see he could do it," Stone said about balancing the state budget. But the sweep of Walker’s eventual proposal caught even Stone off guard. "Yeah, I was a little surprised (he put it all in)," Stone said. "But I also understand if you don’t control those things you will have trouble controlling costs." Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-03 10:59 PM |
| 2011-03-03 11:12 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) |
| 2011-03-04 5:03 AM in reply to: #3382091 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:56 PM
Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." The fact that your principles may not align with what it says does not make it untrue. Politifact is run by the St. Pete Times a newspaper with a fairly obvious bias so I am not sure where you are getting the non-paritisan idea from. When in doubt Politifact and SPT lean left though politifact less so I must admit. |
| 2011-03-04 7:44 AM in reply to: #3382102 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 9:12 PM How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) I thought you were all in favor of people breaking the rules if they felt strongly about it....... Or is that just when it benefits you? |
| 2011-03-04 8:12 AM in reply to: #3382146 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: trinnas - 2011-03-04 5:03 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:56 PM
Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." The fact that your principles may not align with what it says does not make it untrue. Politifact is run by the St. Pete Times a newspaper with a fairly obvious bias so I am not sure where you are getting the non-paritisan idea from. When in doubt Politifact and SPT lean left though politifact less so I must admit. So all of the claims they rate as false made my those opposed to Walker's plans are in fact true? |
| 2011-03-04 8:13 AM in reply to: #3382091 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 10:56 PM scoobysdad - 2011-03-03 8:05 PM wannabefaster - 2011-03-03 7:53 PM Thanks for the link. I learned something Politi"Fact" has proven to be a dubious resource at best. Walker campaigned that he would balance the state budget without raising taxes and while making Wisconsin a better climate for employers in order to help create 250K new jobs. By default, that meant deep cuts would be necessary. Eliminating the CBA's simply helps give local communities the flexibility and tools to deal with those deep cuts. Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." Yes, dubious. And at times, I'll add "misleading" and "deceptive". Take this this little nugget from earlier this week: PolitiFact rates Gov. Walker's repeated statement that "the State of Wisconsin is broke" as FALSE, despite the fact that Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years. Their rationale? Wisconsin isn't broke because governments can always raise taxes-- up to 100%. So as long as one Wisconsin taxpayer still has one dollar in his pocket over the next two years and the government can take it, the State is not "broke". As one cited professor says, "Broke is a lay term." Gosh, thanks, Politfact-- we're not "broke", we're "insolvent"! Yeah, hand them a Pulitzer. |
| 2011-03-04 8:20 AM in reply to: #3382283 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-03-04 6:12 AM trinnas - 2011-03-04 5:03 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:56 PM
Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." The fact that your principles may not align with what it says does not make it untrue. Politifact is run by the St. Pete Times a newspaper with a fairly obvious bias so I am not sure where you are getting the non-paritisan idea from. When in doubt Politifact and SPT lean left though politifact less so I must admit. So all of the claims they rate as false made my those opposed to Walker's plans are in fact true? Don't answer that trinnas.  |
| 2011-03-04 8:22 AM in reply to: #3382285 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-04 8:13 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 10:56 PM Yes, dubious. And at times, I'll add "misleading" and "deceptive". Take this this little nugget from earlier this week: PolitiFact rates Gov. Walker's repeated statement that "the State of Wisconsin is broke" as FALSE, despite the fact that Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years. Their rationale? Wisconsin isn't broke because governments can always raise taxes-- up to 100%. So as long as one Wisconsin taxpayer still has one dollar in his pocket over the next two years and the government can take it, the State is not "broke". As one cited professor says, "Broke is a lay term." Gosh, thanks, Politfact-- we're not "broke", we're "insolvent"! Yeah, hand them a Pulitzer. scoobysdad - 2011-03-03 8:05 PM wannabefaster - 2011-03-03 7:53 PM Thanks for the link. I learned something Politi"Fact" has proven to be a dubious resource at best. Walker campaigned that he would balance the state budget without raising taxes and while making Wisconsin a better climate for employers in order to help create 250K new jobs. By default, that meant deep cuts would be necessary. Eliminating the CBA's simply helps give local communities the flexibility and tools to deal with those deep cuts. Yes, a completely non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize winning fact check is "dubious." Actually, no, that wasn't their argument. "Broke" equals "no money". Having a budget deficit is not the same as having "no money". The state is not declaring bankruptcy, hence it's not "broke". Is there a budget deficit? Absolutely, but that's not the same as not having any money at all. They aren't claiming there aren't serious budgetary issues that need addressing, just that "broke" is not really an accurate term to use. |
| 2011-03-04 8:36 AM in reply to: #3382102 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:12 PM How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) Illegally shut down? Hmm, interesting. Despite having hours in which the Capitol is open, the protesters decided to ignore them and make the Capitol their own personal campground. I'd say that's illegal. Capitol officials have estimated the protesters and their gross mistreatment of the building have already caused $7 million in damages and clean-up costs. In addition, their presence is costing the State $3-4 million a week in additional police and security fees. Guess they're not too worried about the financial shape of the State. BTW, because police have openly said they cannot guarantee the safety of anyone entering the Capitol building, business and school groups have had to cancel their appointments to meet with their legislators and tour the Capitol. So, who's denying the public access and trampling on people's rights again? |
| 2011-03-04 8:50 AM in reply to: #3382325 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-04 8:36 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:12 PM Illegally shut down? Hmm, interesting. Despite having hours in which the Capitol is open, the protesters decided to ignore them and make the Capitol their own personal campground. I'd say that's illegal. Capitol officials have estimated the protesters and their gross mistreatment of the building have already caused $7 million in damages and clean-up costs. In addition, their presence is costing the State $3-4 million a week in additional police and security fees. Guess they're not too worried about the financial shape of the State. BTW, because police have openly said they cannot guarantee the safety of anyone entering the Capitol building, business and school groups have had to cancel their appointments to meet with their legislators and tour the Capitol. So, who's denying the public access and trampling on people's rights again? How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) So, you are against the right of people to assemble because it's inconvenient to tour groups? |
| 2011-03-04 9:10 AM in reply to: #3382358 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-03-04 6:50 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-04 8:36 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:12 PM Illegally shut down? Hmm, interesting. Despite having hours in which the Capitol is open, the protesters decided to ignore them and make the Capitol their own personal campground. I'd say that's illegal. Capitol officials have estimated the protesters and their gross mistreatment of the building have already caused $7 million in damages and clean-up costs. In addition, their presence is costing the State $3-4 million a week in additional police and security fees. Guess they're not too worried about the financial shape of the State. BTW, because police have openly said they cannot guarantee the safety of anyone entering the Capitol building, business and school groups have had to cancel their appointments to meet with their legislators and tour the Capitol. So, who's denying the public access and trampling on people's rights again? How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) So, you are against the right of people to assemble because it's inconvenient to tour groups? So, are you for protestors destroying the capitol and limiting the states ability to conduct business? |
| 2011-03-04 9:28 AM in reply to: #3382394 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-04 9:10 AM coredump - 2011-03-04 6:50 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-04 8:36 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:12 PM Illegally shut down? Hmm, interesting. Despite having hours in which the Capitol is open, the protesters decided to ignore them and make the Capitol their own personal campground. I'd say that's illegal. Capitol officials have estimated the protesters and their gross mistreatment of the building have already caused $7 million in damages and clean-up costs. In addition, their presence is costing the State $3-4 million a week in additional police and security fees. Guess they're not too worried about the financial shape of the State. BTW, because police have openly said they cannot guarantee the safety of anyone entering the Capitol building, business and school groups have had to cancel their appointments to meet with their legislators and tour the Capitol. So, who's denying the public access and trampling on people's rights again? How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) So, you are against the right of people to assemble because it's inconvenient to tour groups? So, are you for protestors destroying the capitol and limiting the states ability to conduct business? Destroyed the capitol? I hadn't realized the building was demolished by the protesters. When did this happen? The $7 milllion cleanup cost has not been confirmed, it's one estimate, it's not a firm cost. Will it cost something to clean up? Yes. Will it cost $7 million? I think probably not, but you're welcome to speculate. Until it's confirmed, it's just speculation though. As for the illegality of restricting access, the judge who ruled on this *did* find the restrictions unconstitutional. He did also rule that the protesters cannot camp out in the rotunda, and that they can be restricted from entering the area where the legislative offices are located. However, they cannot be restricted from entering the building during business hours, or during anytime the legislature is in session (if they remain in session outside of normal business hours). I think that's a just decision and one that I agree with. Despite the protesters it seems the state assembly was still able to work on legislation, so I'll also call your "limiting the states ability to conduct business" as a great exaggeration. |
| 2011-03-04 9:29 AM in reply to: #3382358 |
Extreme Veteran 312 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-03-04 8:50 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-04 8:36 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-03 11:12 PM Illegally shut down? Hmm, interesting. Despite having hours in which the Capitol is open, the protesters decided to ignore them and make the Capitol their own personal campground. I'd say that's illegal. Capitol officials have estimated the protesters and their gross mistreatment of the building have already caused $7 million in damages and clean-up costs. In addition, their presence is costing the State $3-4 million a week in additional police and security fees. Guess they're not too worried about the financial shape of the State. BTW, because police have openly said they cannot guarantee the safety of anyone entering the Capitol building, business and school groups have had to cancel their appointments to meet with their legislators and tour the Capitol. So, who's denying the public access and trampling on people's rights again? How nice. While the media has largely ignored the fact that Gov. Walker has illegally shut down the Capitol to protesters the last few days, the most ridiculous part is that he has also made it very difficult for legislators to get to their offices as well. This is Rep. Nick Milroy, a really nice guy from up North who I had the pleasure of talking to for a good while on Tuesday. Truly wants to work in an environment where legislators can discuss issues, not stand on party lines and ignore debate. (warning: slightly NSFW) So, you are against the right of people to assemble because it's inconvenient to tour groups?
So can I go with a group of 1000 people and sit in the oval office? NO. Your comment is ridiculous on it's face. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK